TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Every day, just the 1% of the cells of your DNA that gets replicated stretches from here to the sun four times. If you're to line it up end by end, that's very hard to conceptualize. But it should give you a little bit of humility before you go and start monkeying with it with these vaccines that can actually alter your DNA. And that's what I'm gonna show you. Is that the vaccines had a DNA contamination in them that didn't tell you about that could in fact alter your genome. Alright? These people are vibe coding your genome. And this is a major attack surface to the human gene pool because if this thing starts to alter the lifespan of people, it's going to part you with your Bitcoin. You're gonna end up spending money in a fiat system that has no controls, has no liability, and ends up oftentimes inducing mandates to get what it wants done. Many people had have peer have gone and replicated this work. It happened on Twitter. It did not happen very quickly in the peer review system. The peer review system kinda kicked it out. Some of these papers have now been peer reviewed, but it took years for them to come to this conclusion. Now, the FDA, the EMA and the TGA have all admitted that this mistake has happened. How did it happen? There's a big bait and switch. Pfizer actually ran the trial of 22,000 people on the process on the left and after they got to the trial, they then switched to the process on the right and didn't retrial the drug. And in doing so, they left a tremendous amount of excess DNA behind in the product. So all of the vaccine efficiency numbers you've heard in the news are flawed. They're not real because that's not what actually went into the trial. What went to the public was actually something that came out of this process too. It's published now in the BMJ that this fraud happened and no one has yet been prosecuted for it. So what did they leave in there? What they left in there was something we know from the polio scandal. If you're not familiar with the polio scandal, that polio vaccines were also contaminated with something known as SV40 and it created a massive cancer wave. Now the whole virus isn't in these vaccines, but there is a very curious part of this called the SV40 region that Pfizer intentionally removed from the disclosure that they gave to the FDA. So the FDA has admitted that this SV40 material is in there. They did not spell this out to the regulators. The regulators did not find them and they're actually running cover for them saying this DNA is too little consequence to matter, it's too small, and it's not functional. But we know it's functional because Dean et al has published that this piece of DNA drives DNA straight to the nucleus. It gets used in gene therapy vectors.

It is nearly impossible to publish data that goes against the national public health narrative, preventing doctors from finding solutions. The speaker has conducted clinical trials for pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine studies, and has brought vaccines and other drugs to market. Some drugs never made it to market because they killed people. Clinical trial guidelines ensure safe drugs, but these guidelines were not followed during the pandemic, affecting everyone. COVID should have been a time for doctors to unite, but interference with research occurred. Science evolves through experiments, skepticism, and an open mind. Challenging current knowledge must be allowed to move science forward, but what the speaker witnessed during the pandemic was not science.

A study claimed chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2 in tissue culture. The speaker examined the study, noting it used CaLU3 lung cells. The speaker contacted the author, stating the study showed chloroquine allows the virus to attack a cancer cell, while protecting a normal cell. The speaker believes the study authors misinterpreted the data and hid the fact that they used KLU3 lung cells, which was found in the appendix. The speaker accuses them of a disinformation campaign, claiming they misrepresented the study's findings to suggest chloroquine is unlikely to work against SARS CoV 2. The speaker believes the study actually proved chloroquine is effective because it allows viruses to attack cancer cells, but not normal cells.

People leaving universities with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers for science, ignoring observation and discussion. This narrow view stifles new scientific insights from emerging. Breakthroughs often come from outside the mainstream, not the center of the profession. Relying solely on peer review hinders progress and risks self-destruction due to ignorance.

The PCR test, commonly used for COVID-19, involves a nasal swab. According to Kary Mullis, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist who created the test, it can detect almost anything if amplified enough. However, Mullis himself stated that the PCR test should not be used to diagnose diseases, as it only detects fragments of illness. Many laboratories worldwide run the test at high amplification levels, leading to a high rate of false positives. Even Anthony Fauci acknowledged that results beyond 33 cycles are likely not infectious material. The New York Times reported that 90% of PCR tests were not indicative of active illness. Lowering the amplification cycles resulted in significant reductions in case numbers. In the past, PCR tests have caused false positives, such as in a whooping cough pseudoepidemic. Some criticize Fauci for misleading the public.

Speaker 0: Asked about the system of retractions and whether retracting a paper discredits a hypothesis, and on what basis retractions occur. Speaker 1: Responded that quoting papers that are later retracted does not negate a hypothesis; there is no rule requiring a hypothesis to be retracted if a cited paper is retracted after publication. They note that the practice involves harassing journals rather than logically disproving a hypothesis. For example, they may present a dozen questions to the journal, answer all of them, and then continue harassing the journal to the point that the journal ignores the answers and retracts the paper to avoid further harassment.

A recent study claimed that the malaria drug Chloroquine does not inhibit SARS CoV 2. However, upon closer examination, it was found that the drug does work in kidney cells but not in lung cells. The study used a lung cancer cell line called KLU three, which led to the misunderstanding that Chloroquine allows the virus to attack cancer cells but not normal cells. This misinterpretation was deliberately hidden in the appendix of the study, contributing to a disinformation campaign. In reality, Chloroquine is a highly effective drug that can protect normal cells from the virus.

A recent study claimed that the malaria drug chloroquine doesn't inhibit SARS-CoV-2, but the study used KLU-3 lung cells. After looking at the study, I realized KLU-3 cells are lung cancer cells. I contacted the author, pointing out that the study inadvertently demonstrated that chloroquine allows viruses to attack cancer cells while protecting normal cells because cancer cells are de-differentiated with different receptors. The author misinterpreted the data. The fact that they used KLU-3 lung cells was hidden in the appendix. This is disinformation. They're saying chloroquine is unlikely to work against SARS-CoV-2. On the contrary, this proves that chloroquine is incredibly smart because it lets viruses attack cancer cells, not normal cells.

Science is often misunderstood. Many people with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers and ignore observation, thinking, and discussion. This narrow view is pathetic. Academia values peer-reviewed papers, but this blocks new scientific insights and advancements. Breakthroughs in science usually come from the fringe, not the center of the profession. The finest candlemakers couldn't have imagined electric lights. Our ignorance and stupidity may lead to our downfall.

The PCR test, used to determine COVID-19 cases, amplifies RNA fragments to detect the virus. However, the high amplification can also detect traces of dead virus or remnants from other coronaviruses. Scientists recommend not testing over 30 cycle thresholds to avoid false positives. When labs reduced the cycles, case numbers significantly decreased. False positives can occur almost half the time, especially in populations with low COVID-19 prevalence. In the past, PCR tests have caused false epidemics. The test requires skilled technicians and careful handling, but it is currently being conducted on a large scale with hastily trained personnel. Therefore, it is important to question the accuracy of reported case numbers.

COVID world 10/09/2022 reports estimated extra deaths of 31 million and estimated serious adverse effects of 1.9 billion for three years of SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons. The two main differences with the previous estimates on 10/01/2022 are: First, 11 countries, for about 600,000,000 people, were added to the estimate base data. As such, the current estimate base data consists of 47 countries for about 2,300,000,000 people, making the current estimates more representative for the whole world. Second, for estimating the serious adverse effects the extra deaths of 2021 and 2022 are taken fully into account as input instead of half in the previous estimates. The extra deaths estimates for 2020, 2021, and 2022 are based on officially reported and factual deaths in the countries mentioned in the table below. For the source of all the used data see the Our World and Data links in the appendix. Extra deaths (see columns twenty twenty ED, twenty twenty one ED, and twenty twenty two ED in the table below) are calculated as the difference of the factual number of total deaths in the concerned year. The missing months of the incomplete 2022 year are estimated by extrapolation of the monthly average of all known months from January 2021 on. The for yearly evolution corrected average of the five preceding years 2015 to 2019. The yearly correction factor used is 0.75% and was calculated based on the evolution of the sum of deaths of all countries below in 2015 to 2019. For the 2020 ED estimate the correction factor 0.75 was three times (reference year twenty seventeen) applied on the five year average, for 2021 ED four times and for 2022 ED five times. In other words, the extra deaths estimates are in fact the excess deaths after correction for an expected yearly evolution and expected yearly without the mass vaccination and COVID bioweapons. Then to calculate the 2020 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED100 ks extra deaths per 100 ks people of the country is calculated. Then this column is aggregated which results in 112 extra deaths per 100 ks people. The latter value is applied on the world population which results into nine million extra deaths in 2020, the first year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. To calculate the 2021 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED21M doses, extra deaths per million doses given in the country, is calculated. This column is aggregated which results in nine sixty one extra deaths per million doses. The latter value is applied on the world doses which results into twelve point one million extra deaths in 2021, the first year with the vaccine bioweapon and second year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. To calculate the 2022 ED estimate for the world, first the column ED22M doses, extra deaths per million doses given in the country, is calculated. This column is aggregated which results in seven sixty three extra deaths per million doses. The latter value is applied on the world doses which results into nine point six million extra deaths in 2022, the second year with the vaccine bioweapon and third year with the COVID bioweapon deployed. Press CTRL plus four more image detail below. The estimate for people with serious adverse effects is calculated by multiplying the estimated extra deaths in 2021 and 2022 by an estimated ratio reported adverse effects/reported deaths after COVID vaccination. The ratio used is 87.6 and was calculated from the table Estimated probabilities after COVID vaccination for all ages in the article below. This results in an estimated one point one billion serious adverse effects for 2021 and zero point eight billion for 2022. Considering the estimated thirty one million extra deaths and estimated one point nine billion serious adverse effects for three years of deployed SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons the words bioweaponized, propagandized, lured, coerced and mandated depopulation and genocide should not be taboo. Furthermore, there are about ten million extra deaths yearly worldwide since 2020. If these extra deaths are continued this will result in one hundred and ten million extra deaths by the end of 2030 from these bioweapons since 2020. For the sake of estimating, certain assumptions about the domain were introduced. If one or some of those assumptions would be far off target, for example as more data becomes available and is integrated in the estimation or some data appears faulty, the current estimates and trends could be seriously unvalidated. Because of the mass propaganda, corrupted science, lack of truthful science and censorship in the mainstream media and on tech platforms, thus the elites, many people still think SARS CoV-two is a naturally evolved virus. Truthful science though proves beyond any doubt SARS CoV-two is designed and made by humans in a biolab. After all and first of all, science shows the genetic code of SARS CoV-two contains several lab made inserts, not natural mutations or recombinations of natural viruses. Because these inserted codes PRRA (HIVGP120) are much too large and too many, and because these genetic codes only appear in other natural viruses that are genetically much too different from SARS CoV-two, the probability that SARS CoV-two has naturally mutated or recombined from other natural viruses is quasi zero. Furthermore, there exists a substantial trail of documents and testimonies, years before and after the release of SARS CoV-two about these genetic codes and the existing biochemical technology needed to insert them, financing of the research, scientific documents, patents. See the links below for sources and science. Doctor. Richard M. Fleming, MD, sworn testimony that COVID-nineteen is a bioweapon. Doctor. Richard Fleming on Montanier's discovery of HIV and spiked protein. The virus comes from a lab, appears from the Veritas Revelation Project. Are our scientists lying to us? SARS CoV-two is likely a lab construct. The origin of SARS CoV-two. Since the Genentech COVID vaccines make the human body cells produced during months up to years huge amounts than the average, dominantly only mucosal, infection with SARS CoV-two itself which for the majority of healthy unvaccinated people causes hardly any illness, just cold like symptoms, these Genentech COVID vaccines are of course themselves bioweapons and much worse than the virus itself. Furthermore, not only the produced toxic spike protein but also other components and contaminations of these vaccines are cause of serious health damage. See the links below for information about the devastating effects of the COVID vaccine bioweapons. Images, press CTRL plus for more image detail. The article COVID World 10/09/2022, estimated extra deaths thirty one million and estimated serious adverse effects 1,900,000,000 for three years of SARS CoV-two virus and vaccine bioweapons was written by Pak Osmol, 10/09/2022. Appendix A Data Source. Our World in Data Excess Mortality Raw Death Count. Click the Download tab below the graph on the displayed page. Downloaded CSV September 2022 from Our World in Data Excess Mortality Raw Death Count. Right click the link and then Save Link As.

Virologists are using pseudo scientific methods and changing the meaning of words to support their anti scientific practices. The COVID-19 fraud is centered around virology's claims. It is important to expose virology's fallacies to prevent future viral pandemics.

The gold standard in scientific research requires replication, which is currently lacking at the NIH. At least 20% of NIH budgets should be allocated to replication studies, and all science should be published with raw data and peer reviews. A notable example is a 20-year-old NIH study on amyloid and Alzheimer's, which incorrectly claimed amyloid plaques were the cause. This led to the cessation of alternative hypotheses and resulted in 800 studies based on a fraudulent premise, wasting two decades in the search for a cure. It's crucial to eliminate outdated practices and ensure transparency and replicability in scientific research.

The core of the problem is something called the replication crisis, where it turns out the majority of even top studies cannot, in fact, be replicated. In science, if you cannot replicate a result, it is not real. Out of the 67 top studies they tried to replicate, just 21% could be reproduced. Amgen found just 11% of studies could be replicated. Note, this is studies dealing with cells. We can only imagine studies dealing with people who are, of course, much more complex than cells. So what percent of psychology, sociology, gender swapping, even economics is false? Perhaps 90%, it could be 99. As Nobel economist James Buchanan famously put it, professors are, quote, camp following whores who will say whatever you pay them to say. So to fix this, the NIH is proposing to fund independent studies that simply retest key findings, what Bayer and Amgen did. It should be very fun when they run foundational left wing studies through the meat grinder from mutilating children to global warming to the minimum wage or inflation and central banking. Grab the popcorn. In the near term, the main takeaway from the replication crisis is any study that feels off probably is fake.

Virologists have been following outdated procedures and interpreting results based on false assumptions. They mistakenly believe that monkey kidney cells naturally contain the same virus as human measles, causing cell breakdown. However, it is actually the starving and poisoning procedure that leads to this breakdown. Despite acknowledging that monkey kidney cells are unsuitable for investigations, virologists continue to use them even after 55 years. This highlights the deception within the field, as virologists unknowingly deceive the public by following the teachings they were given.

People often have a narrow view of science, only accepting information from peer-reviewed papers. This mindset is limiting and prevents observation, critical thinking, and discussion. Universities sometimes fail to teach students the true essence of science, reducing them to mere followers of academia. Peer review can stifle new scientific insights, as it requires consensus rather than embracing new ideas. Breakthroughs in science usually come from the fringes, not the center of the profession. We must overcome this narrow thinking to foster true scientific progress.

Science hinges on replication, yet NIH stopped enforcing it, creating incentives to publish even when hypotheses fail. Null results often go unpublished, and journals resist publishing critiques of vaccines due to pharmaceutical funding. Editors like Marcia Engel and Richard Horton have lamented that journals have become propaganda vessels for pharmaceutical companies. Pharma pays to publish, hires mercenary scientists to validate products, and preprints spread favorable findings. Pharma reps visit doctors to influence prescribing. It is claimed that 50% of revenues to most pediatricians come from vaccines, and insurers offer bonuses for high vaccination rates, pressuring doctors to follow schedules. Corporate ownership now surrounds practice, with many doctors employed by corporations and facing revenue pressure. The system is described as incentivized to keep people sick, and the conclusion is we’re the sickest nation in the world.

Big Pharma, they own everything. There's a number of past chief editors of journals, and we're not talking just, you know, like some throwaway journals. We're talking New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, British Medical Journal. Okay. Some of the biggest journals in the world. Those are top three out of the top four that I just named. Journal of American Medical Association is the other one. But chief editors in the last twenty years, at least six of them have come out and said that at least 50% of the science that's published is fake. Come on. Read their quotes. Marcia Angel is one of them that I can remember her name. There's a guy by the name of Richard something or other from the British Medical Journal who said the same thing. I just read an article about it the other day. I'll I'll send it to you because it's I'm not surprised. I mean, depth of corruption is is stunning and and the fact that pretty much nothing's been done about it makes you wonder how long this can all last.

The editor responded positively about the study's design but stated it couldn't be published due to the number of null effects. This illustrates the null effects bias, where only studies showing significant findings are published, while those with no effects are ignored. Consequently, when conducting a meta-analysis, the results do not accurately reflect the overall findings because the unpublished null effect studies are missing from the analysis.

The PCR test, used to detect the presence of the SARS CoV-2 virus, has come under scrutiny for its reliability and potential for false positives. The test amplifies RNA fragments to identify the virus, but it can also detect traces of dead virus or remnants from other coronaviruses. Testing at high cycle thresholds can result in false positives, especially in populations with low COVID-19 prevalence. Scientists recommend not testing over 30 cycle thresholds to reduce false positives. Lowering the cycle thresholds has led to significant reductions in reported cases. The misuse and misinterpretation of the PCR test has contributed to inflated case numbers and unnecessary panic.

Science is often misunderstood. Many people with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers, ignoring observation and discussion. This narrow view is limiting and pathetic. Academia values peer-reviewed papers, but this means everyone agrees, stifling new knowledge and advancements. Breakthroughs in science usually come from the fringe, not the center. The finest candlemakers couldn't imagine electric lights. We are endangering ourselves with our own stupidity.

People leaving universities with advanced degrees only trust peer-reviewed papers, stifling new scientific insights. Breakthroughs often come from outside the mainstream, not the center of a profession. This narrow view of science is blocking progress and may lead to self-destruction.

I mean, it's become a joke. These papers that are winning awards at the American College of Gastro, and they're not getting published. So and what I do is I do what I do best, which is basically stir up shit, and I call all my friends. And I go, by the way, my paper has been retracted. That paper of the finding COVID in the stools Yeah. Was considered to be retracted. So, I called Trial Site News, and I said, by the way, you may wanna investigate. That's how they found out about the publishing house, private publishing house that is retracting these papers. So somebody must be paying them. And then I called all my colleagues, Mayo Clinic, Harvard, Yale, and I go, by the way, remember that paper that I found COVID? Well, it got retracted. And they're like, what? But it it passed peer review. Well, your peer review means nothing. And here's the thing. So guess what? You're not getting paid to do these peer reviews. Maybe you should start charging the journals now because clearly, they're going about wasting your time reviewing a paper, and they're going behind your back to retract the paper because it doesn't fit the narrative. So, that's what I do. So, and then the other thing that I did is I called the National Institute of Standards, Scott Jackson. And I basically said, remember my paper that we found COVID in the stools, and you also found COVID in the septic tanks? Well, my paper was retracted. And, you know, they couldn't believe it. They could this is at the government level. People are waking up to see we have a problem. Yeah. This is like the burning of the books.